British withdrawal from ECHR suggests ad-hoc committment to human rights

Britain's proposed temporary withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights, based on the case of the radical Islamist Abu Qatada, is an aberration that flies in the face of what the ECHR represents. The convention is there in the event that an individual who feels that his or her human rights have been violated has a higher body to go to in order to air their grievance, and removing this on a temporary basis suggests that the UK wishes to have this mechanism in place when it is convenient for appearance's sake, and to remove it when it feels there is a fundamental need to do so.

This undermines the very core of what human rights is about, and suggests that the UK feels it is above the capacity to abuse someone's human rights. This is certainly not the case - as we have seen in many countries, including Burma, Tibet, Belarus, and even the USA, a state can often be the most violent perpetrator of human rights abuses, and certainly does not act as a protector against those who would deny fundamental rights. Yes, there are occasions when the human rights of someone who has abused human rights themselves comes into question, especially where the national security of a state is a concern. However, Abu Qatada is certainly not the only person who presents a danger to the people of Britain, and to remove the mechanism, even temporarily, leaves the people of the UK (of all nationalities) open to abuse and a breach of their rights.

What needs to be done is to ensure that Abu Qatada is given a trial and a sentence, rather than leaving him to languish in imprisonment. What he has done may be a profound international issue, but a basic right should be to give everyone who is considered guilty of such a serious crime a fair trial in an open and democratic court of law. Where this is not possible in one's own country, it should be carried out in a country that follows this rule of law and is a signatory to human rights agreements at the international level. Abandoning such an important, and necessary agreement as the European Convention of Human Rights on a temporary basis is not, and will never be, the answer. Such behaviour should lead to an outcry of rage from UN and EU member states that do believe in justice in a fair and humanistic manner.